Abstract
Purpose
To examine the relationship between industry funding and outcome reporting bias in high‐quality studies investigating the use of intravitreal anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents for patients with macular oedema secondary to branch or central retinal vein occlusion (RVO).
Methods
This systematic review in PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE examined all randomized clinical trials and meta‐analyses published in journals with impact factor of ≥2 that investigated effectiveness of intravitreal anti‐VEGF therapy in patients with RVO. The main outcome measure was correspondence between statistical outcome and conclusion wording.
Results
Forty‐five studies met inclusion criteria; 38 (84%) showed correspondence between outcome and conclusion without difference between industry‐funded and nonindustry‐funded publications (p = 0.39) or between publications in journals with impact factor ≥3 versus <3 (p = 0.96).
Conclusion
In high‐quality studies of intravitreal anti‐VEGF therapy for RVO, neither industry funding nor journal impact factor affected the rate of outcome reporting bias.
